Amendments No. 24 and 25 are related and amendment No. 26 is an alternative. All may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 30.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 28, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) The Minister shall appoint two persons nominated in a prescribed manner by a prescribed Chamber of Commerce to be each a Director of a Company.".
In recent years we have grown to realise the value of the chambers of commerce throughout the country. They take a leading role in business development in our towns and cities. They widely represent the business community and it is very important when establishing new State companies that a wide representative body of opinion is involved in the management and running of them. I fear that with the best intentions in the world too many of the nominations fall within the Minister's remit. It creates problems for Ministers, it is not what the public wants and in circumstances where chambers of commerce have proven their ability and their commitment to their local communities time and again, it is wise to indicate at national level that we recognise the voluntary work they do and that where there is an opportunity for their voice to be represented on a new company like this, we are prepared to listen to their views and to the representations they make. There is a fairly wide consensus of political opinion that this kind of representation or something close to it should be agreed to. For that reason I put forward this amendment and hope it is accepted.
I agree with Deputy Smith's observations with one small proviso. Many of the chambers of commerce were useless bodies. Recently their profile has increased and one of the areas where they have made a worth-while contribution is through their nominees to the harbour board. I am a little chary about political nominees to the harbour board. Having served for 12 years on the Dundalk harbour board I know the real contribution comes from people with vested interests, people who have been using the port, people who were nominees of the harbour board who are exporting or importing and using the harbour for that purpose. At one time Dundalk harbour was almost closed except for the involvement of these people. I wish to see more business oriented people not politicians associated with the harbours because they can encourage the development of business. That is why in the Dáil I expressed my opposition to what I thought was a proposal by the Minister to exclude these people or to relegate some of them. From my involvement in harbour boards, I know political nominees from local authorities cannot make the same commitment as people with vested interests. I encourage the Minister to accommodate nominees and increase the representation available to the chambers of commerce. I encourage him to broaden his choice of nominees, minimise political involvement and extend membership to the business interests of the relevant area.
I agree with Deputy Smith. I also agree with a great deal of what Deputy McGahon said and I was interested in his remark about nominating politicians. This seemed to suggest that politicians are not in the real world. We are in the real world, from time to time at any rate.
The Bill is excellent. Now that we have the opportunity, we should do this job right. I am chairman of New Ross Harbour Commissioners, some of whom are representatives from the New Ross Chamber of Commerce and have been excellent members. I do not say this in a patronising way. I have often disagreed with them but they have experience and an interest in New Ross. I am sure a similar situation would apply throughout the country. I ask the Minister to take this into consideration.
I am worried about political nominations. From time to time these do not work. The Minister should consider people with vested interests. A number of people on New Ross harbour board have a vested interest in the port and there was a major court case because of this. By and large, vested interests help to make a better company and people with vested interests should not be excluded. We should do the job right the first time and not have to change later.
I have no interest in remaining a member of New Ross Harbour Commissioners. We recently secured some money and my job is probably completed. I understand it is intended to exclude MEPs, TDs and Senators from membership of harbour boards. This is a retrograde step, is discriminatory and we should not stand for it. We should not oblige TDs, Senators or MEPs to be members but they should not be disbarred. I would like to know the logic behind this. I see no logical reason for the exclusion of politicians. Many boards may feel that their ports would be best served by having TDs, Senators or MEPs as members. I make this case without asking that the Bill be amended. Why are elected representatives being discriminated against? The Minister should change his mind.
One would imagine there is a dramatic change to the right of the Minister to nominate people to the board. I remind everybody present that the Minister has the right to appoint three members of each board.
I received literature from various bodies seeking representation on the board. Some of it surprised me because it suggested there would not be representation from the business community. Some of these bodies are assuming the Minister and the Minister of State are not confident enough to appoint responsible business people to such boards.
I differ with Deputy McGahon. He and I have served on similar boards. Local authority members of boards usually represent the areas in which the ports are situated and have no vested commercial interests in these ports whereas other members did. They can make a valid contribution but for policy decisions, we must be cognisant of the members of boards and from where they come. If we continue to increase the number of bodies which should have a voice, the Minister will have no nominees on boards. I have faith that the Minister will make positive nominations to boards.
I partly agree with Deputy Hugh Byrne's point about MEPs, TDs and Senators. However, we should be realistic. Many TDs serve on county councils and have many other duties and it is very hard to be involved in and contribute positively to everything. If ports are to be commercial entities they need board members who can make positive contributions, not just by attending occasional but all meetings and by being fully au fait with what is happening. I fully support the original recommendation that the Minister should have nominees on boards.
I disagree with Deputy McGahon who derided the role and input of democratically elected representatives at local level. Politics is the real world and most of us live in it. If Deputy McGahon feels the world in which he is living is not real, he should visit my constituency to see the real world.
We want to have the best people on boards and if they are members of chambers of commerce or other bodies they may have a role to play as members of boards.
The number of directors of a commercial harbour company shall not be more than 12, three of whom are to be nominated by the relevant local authority. Dublin City has a huge port and members of Dublin City Council are members of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. There is a logical reason for this. In Dublin the port is the crucial fabric which sustains industry and industrial growth. Decisions of the Dublin Port and Docks Board are of tremendous importance to the city's development. Transportation to and from a port is of direct relevance to the local authority for the area. The movement of goods and passengers affects tourism. Infrastructural facilities, such as hotels and shops, must be provided for liners which berth in Dublin port. It is of key importance that Dublin City Council has a link with the port. There is clearly a need to extend the democratic mandate of city councillors by appointing them as members of the port's board.
Local authorities may have appointed inappropriate people. This is a reflection on the nominating bodies who appointed them but it does not mean there is not serious work which should be done in a professional way by politicians.
My amendment is related, the only difference is that I propose that one person should be nominated by the chamber of commerce in the area of the board to be a director of a harbour board company. However, I am prepared to support Deputy Smith's amendment, which proposes that there be two nominees from the prescribed chamber of commerce. If that fails I will move my amendment.
The chambers play an important role in the commercial and industrial development of their areas and as other speakers said, in recent years they have become much more involved and dynamic in the promotion of industrial and commercial life in their regions. They are representative bodies and the history of participation by chamber of commerce nominees in the past has been one of service of the highest order. Their representation has been valuable. The experience of former members of harbour boards has been that those who have been nominated from chambers of commerce have been, by and large, the leading members of the boards and have made valuable and practical contributions. I wish that contribution to continue and there should be statutory provision to ensure that.
While we have all been speaking we have not heard the Minister's view and there may be no need for us to extol the virtues of these amendments. It would be nice if the Minister would say that he accepts the principle behind them.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Molloy because we may become repetitive on this point. I will call Deputy Costello and Deputy McGahon and then ask the Minister to respond.
I have a certain degree of sympathy for these proposals, especially those concerning the chambers of commerce. I do not necessarily agree that there must be two chamber nominees — although the Minister may make such appointments — but it seems appropriate that the chambers of commerce should have representation. The chamber in Dublin has expanded considerably in recent years. The chambers deal with commercial matters and the main purpose of this legislation is to ensure a strong commercial operation in the port. However, there are areas in which the chamber of commerce is weak and it may not be in the best interests of a port to have a representative from a body which is not carrying out a useful function, so I would urge an element of caution.
The other proposal is that there be three representatives from the local authority. I do not understand why there is so much self-flagellation about politicians, with suggestions that they are not living in the real world and are not in a position to properly represent the interests. Politicians are capable of doing so although their workload may be such that they are unable to take up a job like this. When discussing local authorities, we are concerned with the local authority for the area of the port and the local politicians will be involved in a wide variety of interests, including commercial interests, on behalf of the people they represent. It is therefore quite appropriate that politicians should be represented. I decry recent legislative provisions, particularly concerning semi-State bodies, to automatically exclude Members of the Oireachtas and criminals. Why is there such dual disbarring in legislation?
It is appropriate tha local representatives be among the directors appointed. In an area where the chamber of commerce is a strong body, it is also appropriate that a person be appointed from that body. At the same time, I am reluctant to tie the Minister's hands, knowing that certain ports do not have a strong chamber of commerce and it might not be the appropriate body from which a Minister should be obliged to appoint someone. If there is any value in including an aspiration that the Minister may appoint someone from a chamber, I would favour that.
My left-wing friend lauded the port and harbour board in Dublin. That is an unfortunate choice, given its recent problems when the port was virtually closed. I do not denigrate the contribution of politicians on urban and county councils, nor would I exclude them from harbour boards. Our harbours have been sadly neglected since the British left because all the available money went to promote airports — this is a peculiar position for an island nation.
I base my comments on my involvement on my local harbour board. If we are to make our harbours viable we need to attract more business people to the boards and encourage them to import and export their wares. The Dundalk harbour board almost closed several times but for the involvement of people with vested interests. As Deputy Costello said, a chamber of commerce may be weak in a particular area and we should not confine our choice to chamber nominees. We should widen the Minister's brief.
I am sorry, Deputy McGahon, this is not a Second Stage debate. I have already allowed you to contribute once and I am anxious to make progress.
I was just answering my left-wing friend, although I did not say anything about trade union problems.
We have covered a wide area in discussing these amendments. Deputy McGahon mentioned the historical neglect of the harbours, which is being actively addressed by the Government. We are pursuing a twin track strategy. First, there will be investment of the order of £140 million to modernise our ports, make them efficient and ensure Irish business can compete effectively in Europe, bearing in mind that over 90 per cent of trade in this State goes through our sea ports. Second, we are enacting legislation to modernise and commercialise the management, operation and running of the major ports in the State.
The issue we are addressing now is the composition of the boards of the new companies and we first need to look at the existing composition. At present the harbour authorities range in size from nine to 29 members and comprise representatives of local authorities, chambers of commerce, IBEC, councils and trade unions, the livestock trade and shipping and ministerial nominees. When those boards were established under the 1946 Act they were established as representational boards.
The commercial harbours review group which looked at the whole structure of our harbour administration took the view that structures of that type — in other words, large representative authorities of up to 29 members — were no longer attuned to the competitive requirements of a modern port and were not the most efficient way of managing ports.
Members will recall the group recommended that the boards of directors of the new port companies should have seven members, including employee representation, the chairman and chief executive. It further recommended that the non-executive directors should be appointed by the Minister with a five year term of office and should be drawn from the commercial sector of the economy and that persons with a vested interest in the affairs of the port should not be given board representation.
Following publication of the review group's report there were numerous requests for a continuation of the existing representation. Having considered the matter, the Government decided that the number of directors of each company should be not more than 12 and that three local authority directors should be appointed to each port company. A number of Members have already commented on the importance of the link between the port and the local area and community, the relationships which exist in relation to road and other infrastructure and the importance of local authority involvement in that area.
The Bill as now drafted provides that the number of directors of each company will be not more than 12. The directors, with the exception of the chief executive, the worker directors and the local authority directors, will be appointed by the Minister for the Marine with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Each director, except the chief executive, will be appointed for five years and will be eligible for reappointment. As regards worker directors, it should be pointed out that the norm in the public sector — in the various semi-State companies like Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta and so on — is that workers directors make up one-third of the board's full membership. However, the numbers employed by harbour authorities and to be employed by the new port companies are small compared to the other semi-State bodies and it was felt that one-third representation could be viewed as over representation.
Accordingly, the strategy which has been developed is that the staff of the companies whose employees exceed 50 in number will elect two worker directors, the staff of companies whose employees are between 30 and 50 will elect one and where the staff of a company is less than 30, the Minister will consult wiht the recognised trade unions and appoint a person as a representative of the interests of the employees of that company.
There was a strong demand for continued representation of local authorities on the new port companies boards as such representation would maintain the close relationship between the city and town and the port. It was argued that local ports play a key role in the economic life of the town or city associated with them and that there must be close day to day interaction between the port and the local authority. It was suggested that local authority representation on the port authority provided a long established and effective means of ensuring full co-operation between both bodies. The Government agreed that such co-operation was essential and considered that the inclusion of local authority representation was merited on these grounds. Accordingly, the Minister will appoint three persons nominated in the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority to be each a director of the company.
On the question of the representatives of ships agents and chambers of commerce, which is the subject of the amendments before us, the review group was strongly of the view that persons with a vested business interest in the affairs of a port should not be granted board representation. Some ports are clearly dominated by user interests and one view is that the continuation of such representation could have an inhibiting effect on the commercial effectiveness of the new port companies. Traditionally, user interests have enjoyed representation on the boards of harbour authorities. However, in the course of drafting the legislation, it was decided not to grant representation as of right to user interests to the new port companies. It should be pointed out however that the legislation as drafted does not statutorily exclude such interests from being considered for appointment as directors.
I have had representations from many bodies, including the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland, the Irish Ship Agents Association, individual chambers of commerce and other bodies seeking representation on the boards of the new port companies. In the interests of commerciality, it was decided to move away from the representational boards of the past, some of which had 29 members. Members will appreciate that to provide statutory representation for one body will open up the gates to others who also seek statutory representation on the new bodies. We would end up in a situation where the size of the port companies would increase far beyond what is desirable in the interests of commerciality and what was recommended by the review group.
Having said that, it is my intention that the ministerial directors will in general be drawn from the professional and business community. In appointing such directors I will be anxious to select persons with the appropriate business acumen. For this reason, it is probable that I will invite recognised bodies, such as the chambers of commerce, IBEC, etc., to recommend persons for consideration for appointment as directors. Alternatively, any such body may wish to submit names for consideration for appointment as directors and, of course, such nominations will be borne in mind at the appropriate time. In this regard, I mention that the Irish Ship Agents Association has already submitted a list of nominations for consideration for appointment as board directors. I confirm that those nominations will be considered in line with any other nominations which might be received.
I will not accept the amendments tabled. The term "exclusion" has been used in the course of the debate by a number of speakers. I want to make it clear that no body or organisation is excluded by definition in this legislation.
TDs are excluded.
I will deal with that in a moment. It is intended to appoint the directors of the port companies from commercial and professional interests and to assist in that process the various organisations which represent those interests may make nominations which will be considered by the Minister. The appointments will be made in that way.
On the question of the exclusion of TDs, MEPs and Senators raised by Deputy Byrne and referred to by a number of other Members and which is the subject of another section in the Bill, this legislation provides for the establishment of commercial State companies. TDs and Senators were eligible for appointment to harbour boards under the 1946 Act. The bodies were a type of local authority with responsibility for harbours. Members of the Oireachtas were entitled to be appointed to them in the same way as they would be to any other local body like a vocational education committee or whatever. The bodies now being set up under this legislation are commercial companies and it has not been the practice to appoint Members of the Oireachtas as directors of commercial State companies. That is the reason it is intended to exclude Members of the Oireachtas from membership of the companies concerned.
Where do members of local authorities who were nominated to harbours boards prior to this now stand?
They stand down.
I listened with interest to what the Minister said. It is right that the Bill provides for worker directors, but it is strange that it does not provide for commercial representatives of a town in which a harbour is located. It is still at the Minister's discretion according to this legislation. If he will always do it I do not know why the Minister does not just provide for that. If he will not always do it or if there is a possibility he will not include somebody representing the business interests of the town there should be a provision to ensure that he will do that. It is a copout to say he will do it but it will not be provided for in the legislation. It is nonsense. If he will not always do it we had better provide for it in the Bill to ensure that he does.
With regard to the director, there has been a tradition that a Minister cannot appoint a director to a company. There is a good reason for that because it would be a ministerial appointment. Originally Ministers were on the boards of semi-State bodies. Legislation in the 1930s stopped the Minister appointing his colleagues from the Oireachtas on to every semi-State body in the country. I have no interest in being on any harbour board or committee because I have made it my policy as a local authority member not to go on a plethora of committees. However, as Deputy Sheehan pointed out, the Minister is saying that when Galway County Council meets to decide who should be on the Galway harbour board four of us sitting around the table — three TDs and one Senator — are not in the running although all our other colleagues are. He is saying that we cannot represent our own local authority on a harbour board. That is nonsense. The exclusion should be that we cannot be ministerial nominees. However, the local authority should be allowed to pick any member it wishes without constraint.
I cannot understand why there is this objection in principle — although I understand the ministerial appointment aspect of the issue — to a public representative being on a body. One can be a member of the local GAA or the chamber of commerce but one cannot be on a certain number of State bodies such as regional technical colleges because one is a Member of the Oireachtas. That brands public representatives as incapable of being hard headed. I disagree with that. Public representatives in many cases are a hell of a lot more business orientated and hard headed than many other people, irrespective of where they come from.
Section 34 should be amended. I ask the Minister to consider amending on Report Stage the disqualification of Oireachtas Members and MEPs so that if they are appointed by local authorities that is their good luck.
I agree with Deputy Ó Cuív. I wish to repeat what I said in the Dáil. Without putting a tooth in it, TDs, MEPs and Senators are being excluded. It is wrong to suggest that nobody is being excluded. I am not happy with the reason given by the Minister. He said that it is not the practice. We are doing a good job to date. Let us do the job properly by allowing the option of having a TD, Senator or MEP on the board. That is not to say that they must be on the board. If they are on a board it will help and strengthen the board and thereby strengthen the community in which they live and the economy of that community.
Listening to the Minister I get the feeling that he does not agree with this but that he is prepared to accept that it is the practice. That is not a good enough reason. I do not know who introduced it in the first instance. However, where there are TDs on harbour boards the boards are probably quite strong because of there presence. I ask the Minister to look at this again and to allow that option. It need not be made obligatory. If a harbour board required a TD or Senator or MEP to be on the board it should be allowed to avail of that option.
I do not see why national politicians should be disbarred explicitly and exclusively from being directors of State and semi-State bodies. I have voiced that opinion since 1990 which was the first occasion when I saw this provision in legislation. It was introduced by a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Government in the regional technical college and Dublin Institute of Technology legislation under which the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology were established separately from the vocational educational committees. The entitlement of national politicians to serve on vocational education committees, as they do at present, was retained. It is somewhat ironic to have members of the current Opposition decrying the fact that the trend should be continued in this legislation. I have been consistent in opposing it. There should not be a specific disbarment but I understand the reason for it being introduced. I appreciate that there are grounds for it. Nevertheless, it should not be included because the other category of people who are generally excluded are those who have committed an offence which, by law, excludes them anyway. That gives a bad impression to the public as well.
We cannot accept the three amendments because they are specific to individual agencies or bodies. The Minister has outlined that, in the first instance, the recommendation has been that vested interests have had too large a role in the past and that therefore there has been scope for abuse. While some might say that vested interests should be represented I would say that users should be, although it is hard to draw the line in that regard. However, the Minister has clearly indicated that business interests will be entitled to nominate people. They can write to the Department and the Minister will consider them. If anything should be introduced in this area it should be a specific recognition that appointments will be made from the business community without specifying bodies. The chamber of commerce is strong and active and operates consistently in some areas but not in others. The ship agency is another body that should be entitled to make representations for inclusion. However, there is no reference to the overall body, IBEC, which should also be represented.
The three amendments should be withdrawn and perhaps on Report Stage the Minister could include some reference that would ensure — as he has already indicated in his remarks — that the business community would be represented in his nominations.
Section 30 centres on the nomination of the three local authority representatives. It amazed me to hear such a strident case being put by Deputy H. Byrne who obviously did not have the care or organisation to propose an amendment. The section which refers to membership of the Dáil, Seanad or European Parliament is section 34. I do not see any attempt to amend section 34.
(Interruptions)
It has been a very productive discussion so far and I would like to keep it that way.
I have already stated my viewpoint with regard to MEPs, TDs and Senators — I can understand why this Bill precludes them from such boards. This Bill is trying to provide for the setting up of State commercial companies. We have reduced the number of directors in many cases to 12. We have given local authorities representation with regard to three members. Many of us serve on local authorities and we have 27 other colleagues, many of whom will be looking for positions on such boards. With the responsibilities nowadays of being a TD and a county councillor one cannot give a total contribution to certain bodies. I was a member of such a board for nine years but I found it too much in recent years and I resigned. I understand the logic behind this decision if these boards are to have a serious mandate in the future. It is a wise decision.
Section 30 (6) states: "The Minister shall appoint 3 persons, nominated in the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority, to be each a director of a company." If a local authority wishes to nominate members of that authority who are also TDs or Senators it should be able to do so. TDs and Senators who are members of local authorities should be entitled to sit on boards.
I may be wrong but I do not think that any MEP is a member of a local authority. I have a great deal of sympathy with what Deputy Finucane said because in most cases TDs have enough on their plates already and, like my colleague Deputy Ó Cuív, I have no interest in becoming a member of a harbour board. Having said that, we should not interfere with the wishes of the local authorities involved.
I do not know of an MEP with a dual mandate as a member of local authority. It would not fit too comfortably with their duties in Brussels. However, the case for TDs and Senators has been well made here. I have no strong views on it but I would like the Minister to consider the case which has been argued by my colleagues. This is another instance of parliamentarians being treated as lacking in competence. It delivers the wrong message about the competence of Members of the Oireachtas and treats us as black sheep.
The case for the chamber of commerce is even stronger. It has a strong role to play and currently has the right of nomination. I ask the Minister to take its case on board. Reference was made to vested interests and it was claimed that there might be too much scope for abuse. We certainly cannot speak about the chamber of commerce in those terms. Local authorities and workers will be represented and there will be seven ministerial nominees. The chamber of commerce should also be included in the legislation.
This exclusion proviso is completely illogical. I am not speaking as an aspirant harbour commissioner as my boat is already sailing in relation to appointments. I can accept that the Minister should not nominate TDs. As Deputy Finucane said, most TDs would stand aside for urban or county councillors who would express a wish——
Or former TDs.
——to be a member of a harbour board. However, it is discriminatory against TDs who might be nominated by the local authority. A TD might have a particular expertise or interest in harbour affairs. For example, I am sure that the Cork harbour board would regard Deputy Coveney, who is associated with nautical pursuits and business interests, as a definite asset. Should he be prevented from bringing his expertise to the Cork harbour board? I do not think so. It would be wrong for the Minister to deny any port the expertise of particular TDs if the local authority wishes to nominate them. I have no difficulty with the Minister being denied membership but it would be wrong to introduce a blanket discriminatory clause.
I must remind Members that these amendments are not about that subject. Deputy Eric Byrne was correct in that if Members feel strongly about the issue they can table an amendment to the relevant section on Report Stage.
Thank you.
(Interruptions).
The case has been made and a number of Members have made the same points.
(Interruptions).
I am very disappointed by the Minister of State's response to the amendments which propose representation for the chamber of commerce on the new boards. One has only to look at the history of ministerial appointments to see that political patronage has traditionally played a major role in the choices. Although Members may express disagreement with this system when in Opposition, unfortunately the practice seems to be that when most of them get into office they seek to apply the patronage system themselves.
I have no doubt that when this Bill is enacted and the Minister sits down to make the selections political patronage will be a primary factor in the decision. The Minister of State who, like myself, represents a small party, may shake his head and protest that this will not happen, but I can assure him that he will be a very small fish when it comes to making those appointments because there are two other parties in his rainbow who will also seek satisfaction in relation to the matter. We only have to look at the appointments made by the different parties when they got into Government: they have traditionally sought to appoint supporters or those who are known to be favourably disposed towards their own political organisation.
None more so than the Deputy.
If the Deputy looks at the appointments which I made, he will find out that I stand out as quite an exception. That remark was quite smart alecky.
I do not want any crossfire and I ask the Members for their cooperation.
The allegation was made. It is very unfair when the old accusations are made about somebody who when in office sought to kick the system and make appointments based purely on ability, ignoring political affiliations. I appointed and reappointed members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party.
As a PD, not as a member of Fianna Fáil.
I had a conversion. An old TD in our area used to make a joke about the greyhound pups who opened their eyes. We are not making much progress. We are going back to the old system today of the Minister using many fine arguments in order to give himself the power to make all the appointments. When the Minister comes to make the appointments — the present Minister will not always be the person responsible — we will find that political affiliations will be a major factor. The chambers of commerce are generally accepted as non-political organisations and the people they have appointed in the past were on a non-political basis; they were appointed because of their interests and the contribution they could make. It would be pity to break with that tradition.
If I was satisfied that all future Ministers and Governments making such appointments would do so purely on the basis of ability and interest and the contribution individuals could make I would not see any need to propose this amendment. However the whole purpose of enacting this Bill is to establish them as State commercial enterprises, to give them a strong commercial mandate and to have boards that are commercially oriented. That original intention has been watered down in the presentation given to local authorities and employees. The employees are involved in the organisation and are fully entitled to representation, although one could argue about the others represented.
The only organisation with an industrial and commercial mandate is the chamber of commerce and the Minister would be enhancing this Bill and ensuring the future of these organisations if he accepted the amendment which seeks to continue the practice of giving the chamber of commerce representation on the harbour boards. I support Deputy Smith's amendment that there should be two representatives rather than one, as proposed in my amendment.
The case has been well made for chambers of commerce. I wish to point out to the Minister that the airport in Galway was the brainchild of the local chamber of commerce, which pushed that venture forward. Most chambers of commerce have adopted that kind of development role in their areas. No matter what system we have there will always be somebody somewhere who will not perform as we would like but that is to do with personality rather than the system. The chambers of commerce are representative of development. The Minister has included worker representation so if he was to agree to this amendment, he would be balancing the business and the workers sides.
Section 30 (6) states:
The Minister shall appoint 3 persons, nominated to the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority, to be each a director of a company.
Suppose, for argument's sake, there are five prescribed local authorities in an area and five people are nominated — one from Democratic Left, one from Fine Gael, one from Labour, one from the PD and one from Fianna Fáil, would there not be a terrible temptation on a Minister in a coalition Government to give one to DL, one to Labour and one to Fine Gael and to ignore the other two parties?
The Minister will not decide that.
It says the Minister shall appoint three persons.
The council will decide.
No, the council have nominations.
In fairness to the Deputy he is asking the Minister a question. He should leave it to the Minister to answer.
My understanding on reading this provision is that if there are five prescribed local authorities, they each nominate one person and the Minister will pick three of the five. My suggestion is that the number of local authority representatives should be equal to the number of prescribed local authorities. It should be one member per local authority rather than three members irrespective of the number of prescribed local authorities. Otherwise we will wind up in a peculiar state.
We made the case very well for TDs and we have pointed out how busy they are. We should not forget the Senators, whose job is not often as onerous as that of being a TD. It seems rather illogical to say that we consider it acceptable for a Senator to be a member of the local authority and health board but that it would be too onerous for that same Senator to be a Senator, a member of a local authority and a member of a harbour board. If the workload is at issue, it is nonsense. I do not go as far as other Members. I see a reason for Members of the Oireachtas being excluded from ministerial nominations because of the close relationship between Ministers, Oireachtas Members and MEPs but I ask the Minister again to exclude from that ban members of local authorities who happen to be Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. We should trust the common sense of public representatives who are overworked not to take too many things on board. More public representatives are being careful to limit their involvement because they cannot handle their present workload.
Shortly I hope to have a brace of amendments ready for the second half of the debate on this Bill. Again, they will demonstrate, as we have up to now, our common-sense approach to this Bill and our determination to work on the basis of a non-political approach and reach agreement everywhere we can. In recent months, three board members in Arramara Teoranta were dismissed by the Government and two others in the Agricultural Credit Corporation were listed for sacking. We are not talking about angels, we are talking about harsh political realities on all sides and this has been the picture in the past.
While I have appointed people who were stoutly Fianna Fáil, I have also appointed people whose politics I did not know, I considered they were the best people for the job when I appointed them. In this case the Minister will have, in a case where there is one worker director, seven nominations out of 12. That is a huge area for the likelihood of political patronage. It is in the Minster's interests, and in the national interest, that we would all progressively move away from these auctions. However well we think our parties can be served by this type of patronage, in the long run we are better off seeking nominations in at least 75 per cent of the cases by specific bodies whether they are local, business or commercial interests or worker interests.
As one who has had, like Deputy Molloy, ministerial experience, I do not accept that it is possible to select a group of people to serve on a board who do not have some kind of vested interests in the company, body or authority to which they are being appointed. If we want absolute neutrality, if we want to get somebody who does not know anything about the business, has no interest in it and is never likely to have an interest in it we should choose people who have business and commercial experience and have been successful, perhaps directly, in the port.
It is almost impossible to imagine a member of the chamber of commerce in Dundalk with business interests not having an interest in the port. The same would go for Cork. It is likely that people will seek nomination — whether nominated by prescribed bodies or authorities — who will have knowledge of and certain interests in the harbours. They could be excellent members of a board and have proven that in the past. The Minister will not be successful if he excludes them. It looks as if that is the type of thing the Minister is being asked to do. I would be prepared to amend my amendment to reduce the number of members from two to one to try to reach an accommodation. It is not my preferred choice. An amendment to the same effect has been tabled by Deputy Molloy. If this Bill is passed and gives this and successive Ministers the right to nominate 50 per cent of the members of the new authorities, the Minister is not taking the right option or doing any service for the country.
Given the political climate we have experienced and the natural pressures on Government Ministers to give in to appointments which are naked political patronage, people being asked to serve are being placed at a disadvantage, no matter how honourable they are and the degree of their integrity. From the point of view of the Government, the board and company and the individuals who will be appointed and expected to do a good job, it would be better if the majority of board members were nominated by bodies other than the Minister.
It is right that the Minister should nominate a certain number, but it is wrong that it should be 50 per cent or more of the total representation of the board. That is the reason I will not withdraw this amendment. Although it is not my preferred wish, the reduction from two members to one is a last resort on my part to see if we can reach agreement as we have done so far. When we come to the latter stages of the Bill our approach will be the same.
First, I will deal with the question of Members of the Oireachtas and MEPs. Many Members of the Oireachtas, including Members of this committee have served very admirably on harbour boards over the years — a number as chairpersons of harbour boards, including the Chairman. The proposal in the Bill does not in any way reflect on the commitment or application of those Members.
We are living in a situation where the role of the Oireachtas and the harbour companies is changing. Nothing demonstrates the extent to which the role of the Oireachtas and the nature of its work is changing more than the fact that we last met to debate this Bill during the last week in July and we are back in the first week of September. At one time the Oireachtas rose at the beginning of July and did not resume its legislative business until the end of October. That day is over. It now sits all year and often all week with committees meeting on a Friday. The flexibility which was traditionally available to Members of the Oireachtas for membership of various bodies and so on is perhaps no longer with us.
However, that is not the only reason this change must be made. It must be made because of the change in the nature of the harbour companies. We are moving away from the type of broad representational body the harbour authorities were to commercial companies. One of the reasons Members of the Oireachtas have not been appointed to the boards of State companies is the potential conflict of interest that may exist between the role of a Member of the Oireachtas as a legislator and that person's role as a director of a commercial company. A number of situations may occur where a conflict of interest could arise. We have, for example, a Joint Oireachtas Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies. A member appointed to that committee by the Oireachtas could, for example, sit as a director of a company which might be examined by that committee. There is also the question of areas of legislation which might have a direct impact on the commercial companies of which the Member of the Oireachtas might be a member. This could apply, for example, in the case of taxation legislation. A number of points have been made during the discussion on this Bill regarding the taxation regime that applies to harbour companies. Members of the Oireachtas would be required to vote on that.
There is also the question of the competitiveness of these companies. It will no longer be a case of sitting on the board of the body that administers the port in the town. These commercial bodies will be competing with each other and hustling for business. The role of director in these companies would be a commercial rather than a purely representational one.
For all those reasons it will now be as inappropriate for a Member of the Oireachtas to sit as a director of the Dublin or Dún Laoghaire or Galway port company as it would be for that Member to sit on the board of CIE or Aer Lingus or any other State company. That is why Members of the Oireachtas are excluded from directorships of these companies.
The case has been made at some length for representation of the chambers of commerce and ship agencies. I do not disagree with anything that has been said about the important role of the chamber of commerce in the commercial and civic life of towns and cities. I have the height of admiration for it. Deputy Smith invites me to accept the amendment if he reduces the number of members from two to one. It is not a question of numbers — it is a question of the nature of the composition of the new harbour companies. A deliberate decision has been made to move away from presentational composition to commercial composition.
It has not.
It has. Does the Deputy disagree with the change? Does the Deputy disagree with local authority representation?
We do not. That is the point — the Minister is disagreeing with it.
The Deputy raised the question of change. There is a fundamental recommendation regarding the membership of such boards. Members have spoken about the bulk of the members of harbour companies being appointed by the Minister. The Murphy report recommended that the membership should be appointed in that way. The clear intention — and the Minister, Deputy Barrett, said as much on Second Stage — is to appoint the best possible people as directors of harbour companies.
We heard it all before.
Deputy Molloy made great play about the number of appointments he made on a fair and equitable basis, based on the merits of the candidates and so forth. If that argument applied 15 minutes ago when he spoke it applies equally now.
It is possible to appoint directors of these companies on the basis of the appointees calibre. It is the clear intention to appoint as directors of these companies people from business and professional backgrounds. They will be people who have a knowledge of the business. Deputy Smith raised the question of people being excluded. I specifically made the point that what are called vested interests are not excluded. People with a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interst will certainly be excluded. However, I agree with Deputy Smith that in making the appointments it is likely that people who have interests in the areas of shipping, exporting or the like will inevitably end up as directors of these companies.
If we say, for example, that there will be an automatic statutory right of representation for chambers of commerce we then will have requests from the councils of trade unions, the livestock trade, the IFA, IBEC, pilots and all the other interests that were previously represented on harbour authorities to have automatic representation. We will be back to the old style representational boards which the harbour view group found unsatisfactory and from which we decided to move away. These bodies, including the chamber of commerce, will be entitled to make recommendations and to suggest people for nomination. The Irish Ships Agents Association has already done that and the other bodies will be entitled to do the same. Those recommendations will be taken into account in appointing directors of the companies.
It is approaching 5 p.m. and I wish to dispose of these amendments if possible.
There are public representatives, local authorities' representatives and trade union representatives but we cannot have business represented in the same way.
There will be business representatives.
We cannot specificially say it. Why?
We have said it many times.
In the Bill there is a statutory right for trade unions to be represented.
There is not. There is a statutory right for the employees of the company to be represented and for the management of the company——
The likelihood is that the worker directors will be from trade unions. The Minister should, in the broader interest of the perception of the Bill, allow the trade union's worker director, the local authority and business interests to have statutory representation. The best I could do without pushing for a vote was to reduce my call from two to one.
We have to make a decision because we only have a couple of minutes left. As it is almost 5 p.m. I suggest that we leave a decision on these amendments until we resume next Wednesday so that Members will have an opportunity to reflect on them.
I thank Members for their attendance.
The Select Committee adjourned at 5 p.m.